JUDGMENT 1. The third respondent-insurer preferred this appeal impugning the award dated 27.11.2006 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.479 of 2004, awarding compensation of Rs.6,54,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, out of Rs.10,00,000/- claimed by the claimants, who are none other than wife and three major married daughters of Bobba Srikrishna Murthy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who died in a road accident on 07.10.2003; with contentions in the grounds of appeal that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; the Tribunal should have seen that Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act has no application to the facts of this case, as the income of the deceased exceeds Rs.40,000/- per annum; the Tribunal should have seen that there is no loss of supervisory capacity; that the Tribunal has applied the wrong multiplier and that the compensation awarded by it is highly excessive and prayed to reduce the compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the same in the course of hearing. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are driver and owner of the lorry bearing No.AP-16X-5225, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. However, in the cause title of the appeal, it is endorsed that they are not necessary parties. Thereby, no notice was ordered to them. Even then, the appeal is maintainable undoubtedly. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants as respondents 1 to 4 of the appeal that the award of the Tribunal is just, well considered and supported by reasons and for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere but for no cross objections to enhance and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The parties are being referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 7. Now the points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and needs to be reduced and if so, what is the just compensation to refix. 2. To what result. Point No.1: 8. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The parties are being referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 7. Now the points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and needs to be reduced and if so, what is the just compensation to refix. 2. To what result. Point No.1: 8. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that on 07.10.2003, while the deceased was proceeding from Jonnada Village to Alamuru Village on his scooter with one Challa Nageswara Rao as a pillion rider, and when they reached near outskirts of Alamuru Village at about 9.30 p.m., the lorry of the second respondent driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and dashed the scooter, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. 9. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, the first claimant is wife and claimants 2 to 4 are the major married daughters of the deceased. The major married daughters are not dependants of the deceased as per the settled expressions. When there are dependants and non-dependants, the dependants alone are entitled to compensation and not non-dependants but for in the absence of dependants, the non-dependants being legal representatives are entitled to compensation, if it is shown that they are sufferers by the death of the deceased. 10. No doubt, the evidence on record, more particularly of P.W.1, wife of the deceased, shows that they have no male child but for the three daughters to whom the deceased was also contributing. Though they are major and married daughters, they are sufferers of the extent of contribution of the deceased vide decision of the Apex Court in Gujarat State Road Trans Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987 ACJ 561 (SC). However, coming to the calculation of dependency, as the claim is under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ), where the dependants are four, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is 1/4th, above that 1/5th and below that 1/3rd and where the dependants are parents, it is half. In the instant case, the wife is only dependant among the four claimants, since the other claimants are major married daughters but for to say as concluded supra, the major married daughters are also suffers for proportionate contribution of the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd from the earnings of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 11. Coming to the earnings of the deceased, as seen from the cross-examination of P.W.1, the deceased was a B.Sc graduate and got lands and was also running Venkateswara X-Ray Laboratory at Ravulapalem. Ex.A.11-income tax return claimed upto dated 31.03.2002, but it does not contain any seal of the Income Tax Department to show that it was submitted in the Income Tax Department, but for self-serving preparation, which serves no purpose to assess the income of the deceased. No credence can be given to Ex.A.8, the so called Adangal issued by the Panchayat Secretary. No Revenue Record was filed. However, P.W.1 deposed that the deceased and his brother were cultivating a total extent of Ac.9.00 of land. In the cross-examination, she deposed that the agricultural lands of her husband are transferred in her name (which she means after the death of her husband) and she was taking the income of the agricultural land. Even the evidence of P.W.1 is taken into consideration that the deceased and his brother in all got Ac.9.00 cents of land, to say the share of the deceased is only half therein and the loss caused is only agricultural supervisory loss. Further, P.W.1 in her evidence admitted that she was cultivating the land after the death of her husband. 12. Coming to Venkateswara X-Ray Laboratory, P.W.1 deposed that after the death of her husband, the business is closed since no one is there to look after the same i.e., to say they suffered income therefrom. That is also to be taken into consideration. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, arrived at the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.72,000/- per annum. That is also to be taken into consideration. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, arrived at the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.72,000/- per annum. However, as there is no basis for taking such amount in the absence of any proof of income from that X-Ray Laboratory, much less, any record or licence was filed regarding running of such laboratory, since the deceased was a graduate in B.Sc., it is just in all to take an amount of Rs.5,100/- per month instead of Rs.6,000/-as was taken by the Tribunal. If 1/3rd is deducted from Rs.5,100/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.3,400/- per month and Rs.40,800/- per annum. According to Ex.A.9-birth certificate and Ex.A.10-driving licence, the age of the deceased is 47 years. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in Ex.A.11-income tax return, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 57 years, and the same is admitted by P.W.1 in the cross-examination, such mention cannot be the decisive but for the age mentioned by the doctor during the medical examination in the post mortem report and birth certificate. Further, the age mentioned in date of birth certificate and driving licence, is one and the same and they speak that the deceased was aged about 47 years at the time of accident. For the age group of 46 to 50 years, the appropriate multiplier is ‘13’ as rightly adopted by the Tribunal. If the same is applied, it comes to Rs.5,30,400/-. In addition to that, the claimants are entitled to Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. Though in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013 ACJ 1430 = (4) ALT-35 (SC), the Apex Court awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, in view of the fact that the daughters of the deceased are majors and the eldest one is aged about more than 25 years, the first claimant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate. Then, in total, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.6,05,400/-. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered. Point No.2: 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed reducing the compensation from Rs.6,54,000/- Rs.6,05,400/-. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.